As political scientist Jeffrey Tulis shrewdly observed over 20 years ago in his book “The Rhetorical Presidency,” demagoguery so occupied the minds of America’s Founding Fathers that they started and ended the “Federalist Papers” with cautionary tales warning of how it could insidiously transform republics into tyrannies.
In the first of that seminal collection of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in support of ratifying the U.S. Constitution, Hamilton argued that politicians dedicated to asserting “the rights of the people” are more likely the source of despotism than sober leaders promoting the steady administration of government. “[O]f those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants,” he wrote.
In the 85th and final essay, Hamilton stated that moderate statesmen should be on guard “against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue.”
And so the recent announcements from Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio that they are running for president afford an opportunity for Americans to observe whether their campaign rhetoric smacks of what our Founding Fathers feared: politicians employing radical demagoguery to flatter people in self-destructive ways.
It is striking how sharply the rhetoric and demagoguery of contemporary presidential campaigns, and presidential rhetoric in general, has departed from 18th- and 19th-century norms. Tulis delineated this acute shift in “The Rhetorical Presidency.”
Direct appeals to the mass public to generate support for political and policy goals used to be rare. Abraham Lincoln, less than two months before the start of the Civil War, made a speech in Pittsburgh saying ambiguously that he would not talk about the “present distracted condition of the country.”
Martin Van Buren’s partisan act of singling out Democrats in New York City to win political support for a second presidential term was met with sharp rebukes. The city of Hudson, in fact, passed a resolution censuring Van Buren for his tour’s “political and partizan character.”
In general, public addresses of presidents and presidential candidates from the founding of the republic to the early 20th century reflected the president’s institutional and ceremonial responsibilities, such as inaugural addresses and official proclamations. Policy rhetoric would typically be written down formally and addressed to Congress.
Until Theodore Roosevelt. His “swings around the circle” in the early 20th century appealed to the masses in order to win their support for the 1906 Hepburn Act, which sought to increase government regulation of the railroad industry. Public rhetoric now had blossomed into popular rhetoric, emotional exhortations from the president to the American citizenry for an explicit political purpose.
It was not until Woodrow Wilson, however, that a successful presidential candidate had organized a wide-ranging speaking campaign tour. This change came at a time when Progressives aimed to loosen the grip of party bosses on the presidential selection process (and politics in general) by giving the process more of a popular, plebiscitary touch. Wilson, the first president to publicly criticize America’s Founding Fathers, carried forth this Progressive vision of a style of American politics and campaigning driven by mass appeals to the public.
Where does this development in presidential rhetoric leave us today? Campaigning now drives governance rather than the reverse. Successful presidential candidates nowadays are expected to deliver on their campaign promises once they are in office. In contrast, as Mr. Tulis noted, 19th-century presidential candidates typically did not issue campaign statements or speeches in their own behalf. Governing — the practical art of prudence, wisdom and courage in pursuit of justice — was considered an activity distinctly above the shallow flattery of campaign rhetoric. Popular appeals to people’s emotions were not dignified. The steady deliberation and administration of laws was.
Yet romantic yearnings for more dignified campaign activities collide with political and technological realities, including modern mass media, the growth of the presidential office in the 20th century and democratic reforms to the presidential selection process. These popular opportunities to curry favor with the American public are too seductive for candidates and presidents to pass up.
Indeed, the prospect of radical demagoguery always lurks within a system of government, like ours, in which the people have to be persuaded to vote for someone to represent them. It is up to the American people to disentangle substantive rhetoric from the demagoguery of 2015 presidential candidates. The choice is ours.
• Gregory M. Collins is a graduate student in American politics and political theory at the Catholic University of America.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.